[pbleighton]

"1) a certain group once said that slavery was moral
2) that certain group now says that slavery is immoral
therefore, morality is subjective"

Oh, please. It's not just a "certain group" saying this. The supposed source of "objective morality" for the "certain group" (including of course you) is the Bible, which hasn't changed in 2,000 years, sanctions slavery, which is now recognized as horribly immoral.

Therefore the Bible is wrong about a very major moral issue. How then can Christians claim to have an "objective morality", if the source is so flawed?

Peter

[mike777]

I am a bit surprised you skip over the issue of killing 99.99% of the world in the great flood was ok.

I am a bit surprised you skip over the issue of turning people into salt was ok.

You might notice a few other times when it seemed killing a bunch of people was ok also in that good book.

You might notice the response was often why them and not me?

As I mentioned before, why was evil and great suffering allowed to enter into the world?

You can "google" or "ask" to buy many books on this issue if you would like to learn more.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 6 2006, 01:18 AM, said:

if a morality is "barely debatable" then it is, of course, somewhat debatable, and the degree to which it is either of those is itself debatable... would you agree?

This is clear, I just happen to disagree.

In the context of this thread, "slavery is imoral" is probably not debatable since I expect nobody in this forum to support slavery. And even if someone happened to support slavery, I would not bother to debate with him/her.

On what conditions it is morally acceptable for a government to asault another country, might, however, be debatable. Again, within the context of this thread. In another forum where that issue might not be debatable.

All participants in this thread are English-writing bridge players living in 2006 and interested in discussions at a reasonable academic level. That sorta gives us a common reference frame. Not to suggest that we are expected to agree on everything, but I do expect most posters to agree on some issues.

When Peter said "It is imoral to xxx" then it might mean that it's his personal opinion, or he might be referening to the presumed common reference frame of the participants in this frame, or to some other frame of reference. Of course, he's not claiming that it's "objectively" imoral to xxx. It may be that he believes in some grey scale between those alternatives. It may be that he didn't realy think about it in such details. FWIW, I don't care what frame of reference he was operating in. I pretty much understand what he means.

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 6 2006, 01:18 AM, said:

claus quoted something concerning human rights which he, presumably, was setting forth as a way to judge a thing moral or not... but that simply begs the question - whose morality was he quoting and why is it any more moral than another's

I refer to human rights simply because thats the recognized standards all memberstates of UN have accepted to comply to. That the standards generally accepted as basis for democratic values. I have never heard of anybody disagreeing those standards.

Many are violating parts of human rights agreements - normally they are hard blamed for it. I have never seen any country officially disagreeing or maybe even trying to have those standards changed fundamentally. Please remember thats also the standards on which not only our national judicial systems are based but internationally law as well. We may in future be prepared for attacks against those values from some of the theocraties - but none else I think.

Those are simply what you may call conscience of world community. Maybe you prefer the word 'our common moral values' - then OK with me.

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 6 2006, 12:02 AM, said:

Therefore the Bible is wrong about a very major moral issue.  How then can Christians claim to have an "objective morality", if the source is so flawed? 

i guess i'm just unable to make myself understood... i've not been talking about slavery or any other act, i've been talking about the nature of morality.. you stated that morality is subjective... if that's true, you can't make any definitive statements, pro or con, regarding any issue that speaks to the morality of that issue (i mean, of course, you can't make any logically defensible definitive statements)

you offer as proof of subjective morality happenings in a book you don't believe to be true performed by a God you don't believe exists... why must i be 'good for goodness sake'? why because santa claus is watching me... i know this is true because the song says so

slavery is just one of a number of acts that can be used, but all for the sake of discussion... iow, the question is about morality, not the act one deems moral or immoral, and it's a simple question: if morality is subjective, can one person's beliefs be more moral than another's?

i've not made any value judgments regarding slavery or anything else... all i've stated is that you have no standard by which to judge a thing immoral...

mike said:

As I mentioned before, why was evil and great suffering allowed to enter into the world?

you aren't getting any bites, despite many laudable attempts...

helene said:

In the context of this thread, "slavery is imoral" is probably not debatable since I expect nobody in this forum to support slavery. And even if someone happened to support slavery, I would not bother to debate with him/her.

fwiw, i agree that slavery is immoral... i know it's hard to divorce any one act from the concept of morality, but i'm really not speaking of slavery at all.. i'm speaking of morality.. if it is subjective, there's no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral... if it's subjective, might makes right...

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 6 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

you stated that morality is subjective... if that's true, you can't make any definitive statements, pro or con, regarding any issue that speaks to the morality of that issue (i mean, of course, you can't make any logically defensible definitive statements)

Can you make a logically defensive argument for statements of the kind "The Earth is round?". Surely, it is logically possible that it were flat. My belief in the round Earth is based on my subjective choice to respect the evidence in favour of the round Earth (and disregard some of the alleged flat-Earth evidence) and to prefer a model for the evidense-generating process that makes the same evidense incompatible with a flat Earth.

So it's subjective that the Earth is round. However, I can defend that statement within the context of a specific frame of reference, namely the assumtption that my readers share my acceptance of certain evidence and that they also share my preference for certain kinds of models for certain evidense-generating proceses (for example, to someone who believed in a completely unpredictable universe in which there was no relation between facts and evidense - which is logically possible - no photo of a round Earth would make any impact).

Whether an argument is valid or not, and whether a statement is true or not, depends on the frame of reference. This goes for moral statements as well.

[csdenmark]

I doubt very much anybody posting here have problems to understand the word 'moral' and the implications derived from that. To me this looks like a discussion of words instead of values.

The value we put into a statement may differ - but not the word itself. At least danes know the comedy Erasmus Montanus, other countries may have similar way to express that.

For those interested to know what Erasmus Montanus is about this is a link to a summary in english

Maybe you have already guessed!

[mike777]

Since this is the conspiracy thread, I should post this here.

How do we ask the UN to attack or shoot machines or people rather than a country?

I can see this taking years or never to get permission to kill a bunch of bad guys spread out all over the world. And who do we ask to kill off the machines and is that moral? .




Man vs. machine
Herald Journal & HJNews Online April 5, 2006
*************************
Utah State University professor
Hugh De Garis predicts a takeover by
AI-based "artilects" and a coming
conflict between humans and machines
in his 2005 book "The Artilect War:
Cosmists vs. Terrans: A Bitter
Controversy Concerning Whether
Humanity Should Build Godlike
Massively Intelligent Machines." He
is featured in a coming documentary
by...
http://www.kurzweila...tml?newsID=5444

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?....html?id%3D5444

[Gerben42]

So which sci fi book did he look to deep into?

[G_R__E_G]

I have what is not only a conspiracy "theory" but in fact I have actual evidence of its veracity. I have been reluctant to say anything about it but I feel I can no longer keep this secret locked up inside of me. If you will all promise me that you do not work for the toothpaste companies I will share it with you......

Ok, good.

So you know how it always seems that you can get just that "one more time" out of a tube of toothpaste despite how empty it may seem? Well guess what - it's true. I have used the same tube for the last six years!! Of course if word of this gets out to the general popultation the multi billion $$$ toothpaste industry would would be devastated.

Please, if you decide to share this secret please do not tell anyone you heard it from me.

Oh crap, what's that noise outside...must go.

[keylime]

I'll restate the biggest conspiracy, and it is NOT a theory:

The U.N.

Hands down, the most corrupt organization on the planet right now.

[Sigi_BC84]

keylime, on Apr 6 2006, 09:56 PM, said:

I'll restate the biggest conspiracy, and it is NOT a theory:

The U.N.

Hands down, the most corrupt organization on the planet right now.

LOL, who cares? This institution is only respected if it is the will of the ones really in power (read the_saint's post above if you haven't yet).

--Sigi

P.S., regarding "corruption" (from the movie "Syriana"):

"Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Brown, thinks he’s
gonna run this up the flag pole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, no-name congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. (mimics prosecutor) “But, Danny, these are sovereign nations.” Sovereign nations! What is a sovereign nation, but a collective of greed run by one individual? “But, Danny, they’re codified by the U.N. charter!” Legitimized gangsterism on a global basis that has no more validity than an agreement between the Crips and the Bloods!

(beat) ...Corruption charges. Corruption? Corruption ain’t nothing more than government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That’s Milton Friedman. He got a ***** Nobel prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around here instead of
fighting each other for scraps of meat out in the streets. (beat)
Corruption... is how we win."

[pbleighton]

"you offer as proof of subjective morality happenings in a book you don't believe to be true performed by a God you don't believe exists... "

No I don't, but you do. My argument is that the "objective morality" you profess to believe in is objectively not "objective". This is the fourth time you have refused to confront this issue. I'll give you one more chance.

"fwiw, i agree that slavery is immoral... i know it's hard to divorce any one act from the concept of morality, but i'm really not speaking of slavery at all.. i'm speaking of morality.. if it is subjective, there's no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral... if it's subjective, might makes right... "

Since you are a Christian, you believe the source of "objective morality" is God, as revealed in the Bible. How, then, can you explain the Bible's support of slavery?

If you can't, then your "objective morality" is in fact subjective.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"I'll restate the biggest conspiracy, and it is NOT a theory:

The U.N.

Hands down, the most corrupt organization on the planet right now."

You forget the Bush administration.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 6 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

"you offer as proof of subjective morality happenings in a book you don't believe to be true performed by a God you don't believe exists... "

No I don't, but you do.

whether i do or not isn't the point... can you really not see how illogical it is to use as proof of a position you take something you don't believe to be true?

you said, "I am an atheist, and as such know that morality is something that the human race makes up as it goes along." examine that statement for a moment... morality is made up as we go along, and you know this because you are an atheist? that does not follow

Quote

My argument is that the "objective morality" you profess to believe in is objectively not "objective".  This is the fourth time you have refused to confront this issue.  I'll give you one more chance.

you keep missing the point, it seems... IF morality is subjective, something you know to be true because you're an atheist, then my ethics are every bit as moral as yours... you can't point to the person who thinks it's right to rape and torture small children and say those acts are immoral, because maybe that person "made it up" as he went along... is your "made up" morality somehow better than his?

i appreciate your giving me one more chance to argue for a position i did not take... i simple asked, in response to your calling actions morally wrong, "now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality? is this the 'peter morality' we're speaking of, or is there some more objective type?" ... to which you replied, "It is an opinion."

my reply was, "well you did say, "It is morally wrong." ... perhaps that sentiment is merely an opinion, but it's stated as a fact" ... as a matter of fact, just so nobody is misled by your attempt to turn this into something it isn't, this is my quote: "no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light "

as you can see, i'm not the one who introduced the concept of morality into this discussion, you did when, speaking of the US toppling foreign gov'ts, you said "It is morally wrong"...

i objected to your use of the word then, and i do now, on the grounds that your morality is no better than that of the ones you're condemning (in a world of subjective morality)...

Quote

Since you are a Christian, you believe the source of "objective morality" is God, as revealed in the Bible.  How, then, can you explain the Bible's support of slavery?

If you can't, then your "objective morality" is in fact subjective.  Since you are a Christian, you believe the source of "objective morality" is God, as revealed in the Bible.  How, then, can you explain the Bible's support of slavery?

If you can't, then your "objective morality" is in fact subjective. 

you seem confused... i haven't been able to find a post of mine where i stated i believe in objective morality, much less the source of that belief... had i said, in defending a certain act of america, "it was the moral thing to do" then you'd be correct to ask me to defend that... however, i didn't... *you* introduced that concept so *you* are the one who must attempt to explain how you can call anything immoral if morality is subjective (a fact known by you because you're an atheist)

as a point of interest though, your statement was fallacious... i'll assume you were just kidding when you said that if i can't explain something then something else doesn't exist.. whether or not i can explain anything in no way proves its opposite

helene said:

Can you make a logically defensive argument for statements of the kind "The Earth is round?".

probably i could, had i stated it as a fact... if i couldn't, i'd be forced to admit that i erred...

Quote

Whether an argument is valid or not, and whether a statement is true or not, depends on the frame of reference. This goes for moral statements as well.

here's a moral statement... "the rape and torture of small children is evil" ... assume that morality is subjective... what frame of reference exists that would make that statement any more true than "the rape and torture of small children is not evil?"

your flat/round earth argument isn't the same, imo, because you seem to be saying that a person could believe the earth is flat because he refuses to accept evidence (factual evidence) to the contrary... whether or not he accepts such evidence, the earth is either flat or it is round (well, spherical)... so one's frame of reference has nothing to do with the actual truth or error of a position

so i'll repeat the question i asked peter, which he must have missed: if morality is subjective, can one person's beliefs be more moral than another's?

[pbleighton]

"as a point of interest though, your statement was fallacious... i'll assume you were just kidding when you said that if i can't explain something then something else doesn't exist.. whether or not i can explain anything in no way proves its opposite"

Your statement means that you have refused to provide any counterargument to what seems to me to be a straightforward argument that Christianity (your religion) provides no basis for "objective morality". Do you feel that "objective morality" exists? If not, see below.

"you keep missing the point, it seems... IF morality is subjective, something you know to be true because you're an atheist, then my ethics are every bit as moral as yours... you can't point to the person who thinks it's right to rape and torture small children and say those acts are immoral, because maybe that person "made it up" as he went along"

Do you feel that you, yourself, can't point to the person who thinks it's right to rape and torture small children and say those acts are immoral, and have a sounder basis than I would in saying the same thing?

If not you, then can anyone?

If so, why?

If not, your arguments have been disingenuous in the extreme, not to mention quite silly. You have dismissed a moral judgment, pointing to my general philosophical position, when in fact you would dismiss that moral judgment, regardless of who said it.

Peter

[han]

If morality is subjective, something you know to be true because you're an atheist, then my ethics are every bit as moral as yours... you can't point to the person who thinks it's right to rape and torture small children and say those acts are immoral

An immoral bunch we non-believers are, we can't even decide whether rape and torture are good or bad. Pray for me Jimmy.

[luke warm]

i'd have expected more from you hannie.. you know that's not even close to what i said

peter said:

Your statement means that you have refused to provide any counterargument to what seems to me to be a straightforward argument that Christianity (your religion) provides no basis for "objective morality".

what are you talking about? you keep inisisting that i have to defend something... *you* introduced morality into the discussion, not me.. the person making the affirmative statement bears the burden of proof... that's basic, but you're trying to make it appear that i said something i didn't say...

i never said that christianity provides a basis for objective morality... you are throwing up a straw man argument... you otoh did say you know morality to be subjective because you're an atheist...

Quote

Do you feel that you, yourself, can't point to the person who thinks it's right to rape and torture small children and say those acts are immoral, and have a sounder basis than I would in saying the same thing?

whew... i have to hope you're just having a little fun.... the example i used could just as easily have been another (such as your example of slavery)... hitler, stalin, pol pot, history is replete with examples of people whose morality might be different from yours...

my point is, if morality is subjective, then you cannot say that your morality is any more "right" than theirs... if you can say that, how? it has nothing to do with the act, it concerns your use of the word 'immoral' regarding that act

[Codo]

It was said here, that the UN does not work properly, because there are vetos from Russia or China. Of course there are vetos. And these states just serves their own purpose. Of course they do.

What does this proof? That the UN is not perfect? Absolutely accepted.

Does this give you or your government the right to decide for its own, whether a war is justified or not? No, because your governement will just look for their interests too.

The idea behind the UN is, that it MAY work. If you decide yourself, this will mostly fail, because the reasons for any given governement to declarer a war are never because they want to rescue lifes, they are always ohter reasons behind the wars.
So, the right to declare war should be well defined by a majority of the world. And the world did so. Tehy defined the rules for deeclaring war. Unluckily, a lot of guys don`t like to follow rules. Mr Breshnew in Afghanistan, Mr. Hussein in Kuweit.
These guys were evil. Obvious.

Unluckily, the president of the US did the same: He started a war and ignored the given rules.

If you take this szenario away from the states and put it in your local village, this is, what happened:
You local sheriff believed, that family Hussein is a danger for his community, because they own too many guns.
He went to the court and showed his indications and proofs. The court said: No, this is not enough. So, your sheriff "produced" some proofs. But still, the court was not conviced behind the last concerns.
No problem said the sheriff, I still want to go there.
Mr Hussein said: Please don`t come, but guys from the court may come and look: I do nothing illegal, I have no guns. So, these guys came and found nothing (not much).
Still your sheriff said: I don´t believe in anything but me. Who cares about the court? L´etat, c´est moi...
I will go there.
So, he went to Mr. Husseins house, killed the dogs, imprisoned the family and occupied the house. No guns found.

No problem, he destroyed the house and told the court, that they have to pay for the repairs. Luckily, he had his own building business and got most of the rebuilding to do. He earned a lot of money but still complaint, that the court should pay for the destroying of the house.

Do you reelect this sheriff?
Do you think, that he has many friends?
Do you like his morality?

I don´t.

[pbleighton]

"my point is, if morality is subjective, then you cannot say that your morality is any more "right" than theirs... if you can say that, how? it has nothing to do with the act, it concerns your use of the word 'immoral' regarding that act"

My point is, can you?

You are the one who introduced "objective" versus "subjective" morality, a straw man IMO, but obviously important to you. Is your morality "objective" or "subjective", in your opinion? I answered your direct question on this, haveing no problem with my position. Why are you so reluctant to answer mine?

Peter